In an organisation’s infancy or in micro-firms comprising a few members, organis- ational learning could be considered synonymous with individual learning. However, as organisations grow, a clear distinction develops between individual and organi- sational learning. But are they one and the same? Argyris and Schon (1978, p. 9) articulate this dilemma as follows:
‘There is something paradoxical here. Organisations are not merely collections of individu- als, yet there are no organisations without such collections. Similarly, organisational learn- ing is not merely individual learning, yet organisations learn through the experience and actions of individuals. What, then, are we to make of organisational learning? What is an organisation that it may learn?’
Chapter 5 / organisational learning 125 The current theories of individual learning come from various branches of behav- iourism and cognitive psychology. Some of the early behaviourist theories of individual learning were based on a stimulus-response model of behaviour (Gutherie 1935; Skinner 1938). These simplistic notions were extended by examining changes in response prob- abilities from various stimuli in the learning process. Further behavioural research in the 1950s was conducted on mechanisms of learning where learning became con- nected with an acquisition of associations, conditioned reflexes and stimulus–response bonds. Subsequent behavioural research explored the role of memory to understand the process of strengthening and weakening associations through rote verbal learn- ing (Underwood 1964). Behaviorists assume that behaviour is a function of its consequences. Hence positive reinforcement such as praise or a reward is likely to result in the desired behavioural outcome. Negative reinforcement such as punishment can weaken certain behaviours but research shows this tends to occur in the short term.
Burns (1995) observes that much competency-based training is based on this approach.
Competence approaches are useful for repetitive tasks but can be rigid and mechanical and lack higher-order learning.
Another branch of learning theory came from cognitive psychology, which saw learning as a change in states of knowledge rather than a change in the probability of response (Bruner et al. 1956). This information-processing perspective laid an emphasis on problem solving. Further research in this area moved to investigate memory struc- tures, processing of information, organisation of knowledge and the process of problem solving (Klahr and Wallace 1976). The advent of the information-processing perspec- tive has led to wide acceptance of computer simulation and modelling of the learning process. The emphasis is on understanding the different levels of experience, meaning and insights within individuals.
The constructivist perspective sees learning as a process where individuals develop new ideas based on their current and past knowledge and experiences. Learning occurs when individuals engage in social activity and conversations around shared tasks and problems. Bandura (1977) argues that learning would be extremely arduous on one’s own. Instead, he suggests that most human behaviour occurs through observing and interacting with others. Social learning theory explains human behaviour as continu- ous interaction between cognitive, behavioural and environmental factors. The process underlying social learning are:
●
● characteristics of the learner such as their sensory capacities and past reinforcement.
This includes the attention ability of the learner to discern the distinctiveness, com- plexity and value of a given behaviour;
●
● learner reproducing a cognitive map illustrating the elements and linkages underly- ing a behaviour;
●
● learner motivation including external and self-reinforcement.
Social learning theory develops Vygotsky’s (1978) framework that social interaction plays a vital role in the development of cognition. Lave and Wenger (1990) extend this notion by arguing that all learning is situated in activity, context and culture. Learners engage in a ‘community of practice’, an informal network of learners, and the social interaction embodies the beliefs and behaviours to be acquired.
A model of the learning process that is widely used in teaching, training and manage- ment is the Lewinian experiential learning model (Kolb 1984), as shown in Figure 5.1.
Individual learning can be defined as (Kim 1993):
‘increasing one’s capacity to take effective action.’
The basic learning cycle from the experiential school of thought has appeared in a variety of different management guises: Deming’s (1986) plan–do–check–act cycle, Schein’s (1987) observation–emotional reaction–judgement–intervention cycle and Argyris and Schon’s (1978) discovery–invention–production–generalisation cycle. Each of the four aspects of the learning process have been developed into learning styles to help individuals understand their strengths and weaknesses in the learning process. An instrument commonly used by trainers is the Learning Styles Questionnaire devised by Honey and Mumford (1986). This instrument provides individual profiles against the four learning styles, activist, pragmatist, reflector and theorist, which are directly related to the Lewinian learning model.
One of the main criticisms against this learning model is that it ignores the learner’s motivation to learn. Without this motivation, or ‘fire under the belly’, it is unlikely that the individual will have any incentive to learn. How do we ignite this fire in indi- viduals to foster learning in organisations? Also, learning models assume that feedback and reflection are central to the learning process. However, in many organisations, there can be a tendency towards an action-fixated, non-learning cycle (Garratt 1987) where the reflection stage is ignored. People don’t necessarily have time to think and reflect, being bombarded by urgent problems and pressing deadlines. Are there serious consequences for individual learning in the ‘busy-busy’ cultures and environments we inhabit? How is the space and time for reflection managed in organisations?
Critical thinking and reflection
Spend five minutes thinking about the different learning practices in your organisation and make a list of them. which ones have you found to be the most effective and why?
what do you consider are the main strengths and limitations of external courses such as MBa programmes? How do you keep your knowledge up to date, particularly for internal promotion opportunities and in a highly changeable and competitive external job market?
Observations and reflections
Testing implications of concepts in new situations Formation of abstract
concepts and generalisations
Concrete experience
Figure 5.1 The Lewinian experiential learning model (Kolb 1984)
Chapter 5 / organisational learning 127 The traditional goals of the learning process are acquisition of knowledge (know what), development of skills (know how) and a change in attitudes of the individual learner. However, through introspection, a learner can also learn about their strengths and weaknesses as a learner. Bateson (1987) coined the phrase ‘deutero-learning’ for individuals who became effective at ‘learning to learn’ and more skilled at problem solving. Defensive routines can create blockages in deutero-learning and inhibit further learning. This is particularly evident among smart and professional people where there may be a disparity between what they say (their ‘espoused theories’) and what they believe (their ‘theories in use’) (Argyris 1991). The defensive reasoning often arises from smart people’s high aspirations for success and their equally high fear of failure which may lead to embarrassment and feelings of vulnerability and incompetence.
Reg Revans (1977) developed the notion of ‘action learning’ from observing manag- ers and recognising that their learning entails taking effective action rather than purely recommending or making an analysis of a given situation. He stressed the need to integrate cognition and action and theory and behaviour. Revans based his notion of learning on the simple mathematical equation:
L (Learning) = P (Programmed Learning) + Q (Questioning Insight)